I mean, to me, “if someone gives them a house they won’t be homeless” makes way more common-sense than “if you give someone a house they will not live in it”
edit to say: I want to get ahead of “gotchas!” like “it doesn’t solve this problem of this one guy my mate’s Da’s landlord’s daughter heard about through a crack in the wall about a homeless guy who set fire to his free housing!” as you can’t legislate or plan for one whackjob who may not even exist.
“Participants were screened for a low risk of mental health challenges and substance abuse.” That’s the CNN article you linked. So thats at least one of these articles that is absolutely irrelevant to the conversation. Gish galloping is such a terrible debate technique.
It’s not a gish gallop, it’s a demonstration of a wide range of applications and environments has a net positive impact.
My original question was “which studies…?” (note plural) which sets the context for a reply with multiple sources
If you demand that anyone produces one, single study that solves the problem: impossible, regardless of topic, field and context. Nothing is provable by that standard.
Secondly, that one CNN article mentions that it was on a subset of people does not destroy the entire premise.
I am still waiting on counterexample studies, if you think providing several is beyond a reasonable ask, two would be acceptable.
I’m not interested in fucking source wars or arguments of attrition. Of course it’s a Gish gallop posting that much without context. It’s just lazy bullshit.
The point is that’s it’s the mentally ill and the drug addicts are the people who aren’t going to benefit from just chucking money at them. They need real help that goes beyond that.
If you don’t believe that there are people out there that are incredibly difficult to re-home, that is on you! Nobody is even saying it’s the majority of people, but some people cannot cope with living “normally”. They usually have advanced schizophrenia.
Would it blow your mind if I told you that some beggars actually have homes?
We’re not talking about beggars we’re talking about the homeless. it’s ironic to change topic while accusing me of logical fallacies.
I’m sorry you’re not interested in how these ideas have actually been implemented and the level of success they show, but to me that’s the only interesting part. It’s all well and good saying “this solution will/won’t work” but it’s, to me at least, only the testing that matters.
As I just asked someone else: do you really believe that a single failure in a system means the whole thing isn’t worth it? the example I used above is penicillin. As at least one person is allergic, and at least one person experiences no effect: does that mean that penicillin is considered ineffectual to bacterial infections? That seems silly to me, which is why I ask what your threshold for success is here.
Well, I asserted my opinion, asked for a counterexample, wasn’t provided with any, was challenged to provide sources for my argument, did. In context I think its a reasonable response.
I am have yet to be linked to a single, non-hearsay argument.
ok here’s my argument: most homeless people aren’t like you describe, these kinds of programs benefit the vast majority and the tolerance of failure lies within expected bounds to believe the program is an overwhelming success (as evinced by the links above).
Although I fail to see how that couldn’t have just been taken as read by any sensible reader.
That’s fair enough and I never denied that. But some people think solving homelessness and hunger is just a matter of printing 1 trillion pounds and could be done by any politician. You know the sort.
You don’t know how peer reviewed science works, and aren’t worth talking to.
The fact that you think that providing housing doesn’t work, when we have multiple countries worldwide that prove it does, just goes to show that you are a selfish bigot that doesn’t want to solve the problem.
I mean, to me, “if someone gives them a house they won’t be homeless” makes way more common-sense than “if you give someone a house they will not live in it”
but asked and answered:
edit to say: I want to get ahead of “gotchas!” like “it doesn’t solve this problem of this one guy my mate’s Da’s landlord’s daughter heard about through a crack in the wall about a homeless guy who set fire to his free housing!” as you can’t legislate or plan for one whackjob who may not even exist.
“Participants were screened for a low risk of mental health challenges and substance abuse.” That’s the CNN article you linked. So thats at least one of these articles that is absolutely irrelevant to the conversation. Gish galloping is such a terrible debate technique.
It’s not a gish gallop, it’s a demonstration of a wide range of applications and environments has a net positive impact.
My original question was “which studies…?” (note plural) which sets the context for a reply with multiple sources
If you demand that anyone produces one, single study that solves the problem: impossible, regardless of topic, field and context. Nothing is provable by that standard.
Secondly, that one CNN article mentions that it was on a subset of people does not destroy the entire premise.
I am still waiting on counterexample studies, if you think providing several is beyond a reasonable ask, two would be acceptable.
I’m not interested in fucking source wars or arguments of attrition. Of course it’s a Gish gallop posting that much without context. It’s just lazy bullshit.
The point is that’s it’s the mentally ill and the drug addicts are the people who aren’t going to benefit from just chucking money at them. They need real help that goes beyond that.
If you don’t believe that there are people out there that are incredibly difficult to re-home, that is on you! Nobody is even saying it’s the majority of people, but some people cannot cope with living “normally”. They usually have advanced schizophrenia.
Would it blow your mind if I told you that some beggars actually have homes?
We’re not talking about beggars we’re talking about the homeless. it’s ironic to change topic while accusing me of logical fallacies.
I’m sorry you’re not interested in how these ideas have actually been implemented and the level of success they show, but to me that’s the only interesting part. It’s all well and good saying “this solution will/won’t work” but it’s, to me at least, only the testing that matters.
As I just asked someone else: do you really believe that a single failure in a system means the whole thing isn’t worth it? the example I used above is penicillin. As at least one person is allergic, and at least one person experiences no effect: does that mean that penicillin is considered ineffectual to bacterial infections? That seems silly to me, which is why I ask what your threshold for success is here.
You: you need to provide sources
Also you: I’m right, I don’t need sources, you’re moving the goalposts, ignore the fact that I have moved the goalposts.
Fuck you, and your bad faith bullshit.
A self proclaimed commie accusing me of bad faith arguments. Pretty rich.
A wall of links with no context does not make a convincing argument. It just looks like you randomly cherry picked stuff.
I wish people would get back to conversations backed up occasionally with data rather than source wars. Social problems aren’t an exact science.
Well, I asserted my opinion, asked for a counterexample, wasn’t provided with any, was challenged to provide sources for my argument, did. In context I think its a reasonable response.
I am have yet to be linked to a single, non-hearsay argument.
You don’t link arguments, you make them. Jesus have people forgotten how to talk.
If you think giving a schizophrenic drug addict thousands of pounds and a house will solve their problems, you’re beyond reason.
ok here’s my argument: most homeless people aren’t like you describe, these kinds of programs benefit the vast majority and the tolerance of failure lies within expected bounds to believe the program is an overwhelming success (as evinced by the links above).
Although I fail to see how that couldn’t have just been taken as read by any sensible reader.
That’s fair enough and I never denied that. But some people think solving homelessness and hunger is just a matter of printing 1 trillion pounds and could be done by any politician. You know the sort.
You don’t know how peer reviewed science works, and aren’t worth talking to.
The fact that you think that providing housing doesn’t work, when we have multiple countries worldwide that prove it does, just goes to show that you are a selfish bigot that doesn’t want to solve the problem.
I literally have a PhD in condensed matter physics.